The terms "mutation" and "natural selection" have been loaded up with a
lot of metaphysical baggage. I think that's part of the problem. I'm
hoping to unpack some of that baggage by considering closely related
natural processes like meiosis.
Mutation, like meiosis and recombination, is a natural process in DNA
governed by the laws of physics and chemistry which God designed. Is it
proper to think of mutation as a malfunction? Only if biological
reproduction was designed to have 100% fidelity. When computer
programmers use a genetic algorithm, they deliberately design less-than-
100% fidelity into reproduction from generation to generation. God
designed the natural laws which govern the replication of DNA during
reproduction. I imagine God could have designed the system for 100%
fidelity. Thank God he didn't! ;-) Mutations play an important role
over the long term, allowing populations of plants and animals to adapt
to changing geological conditions, and allowing them to take advantage
of new ecological niches. In the big picture, mutations should be
thought of as a design feature of the system, not a bug. A particular
mutation event sometimes produces an individual with genetic combination
which is harmful or fatal. The same is true of meiosis and
recombination! From a scientific description, these processes are not
entirely deterministic; they contain a random element. Theologically,
we know that God designed that flexibility into the system, and nothing
"random" happens outside of God's will. (I'll leave aside the
Calvinist/Armenian interpretations of that for now.)
In your response to me, you used the term "design" as refering to the
specific features of a species or an individual. If this is the *only*
way you think of "design," then I agree that mutation and natural
selection seem like crude instruments for achieving them (even if every
"random" event is precisely determined along the way). De novo creation
would seem like a much sharper instrument to achieve design at the level
of species and individuals. But there are additional ways we should
think about "design" -- first of all, at the level of the basic laws of
nature; secondly, at the level of a complex, inter-linked ecosystem
designed to continue and evolve over a long period. At that level,
mutation and natural selection do not seem (to me) to be "crude tools"
at all. They are such remarkably good design features that we are
beginning to copy them into our own technology and research. And since
no "random" event happens outside God's control, God can equally well
use mutation and natural selection to implement additional "design" at
the level of species and individuals.
Loren Haarsma